You keep hammering at this, yet today Kellyanne said in an interview that the WH accepts the court's right to judicial review.
What is the point of saying he's allowed to do this without approval when his own administration is saying that's not true??
This has been established law since 1803 - ALL executive and legislative actions are subject to judicial review to verify that they conform to the Constitution. One SCOTUS decision is not necessarily precedent for every other similar case that follows - each case being reviewed has to be judged on its own merits, and IF the court agrees that the precedent applies, they will rule that way. It's in no way automatic; citing preceding case law is just a form of argument, not a guarantee.
The fact that Congress says the President can do something by proclamation does not change the fact that the courts can review that decision. Three branches of government, co-equal, with the purpose of checks and balances. The courts will not interfere when the other branches are in compliance with the Constitution, but they have a right and a responsibility to do so when the other branches are not. |
